Gethsemani:The double moral in this thread is delicious. Anita Sarkeesian and feminists get doxxed with everything including real name and home address along with comments that implies the doxxers want others to harass the doxxed people (and don't mind if the doxxed people get physically hurt): "It ain't that bad"/"Them are just trolls"/"She has it coming for being so hateful against men". Two hostile haters attacking Sarkeesian has their IP-number and e-mail revealed in two screenshots, possibly by mistake: "ANITA ARE DOXXING THEM, THIS MUCH WRONG! VERY RAGE!"

Where has that happened? No seriously where? But as for her real name, it's not doxxing if you use it yourself on the internet all the time. Seriously has she ever tried to be anonymous with her videos?

Gethsemani:But just looking at the pictures makes it obvious that the real victim here is Sarkeesian, who only responds to a vicious attack on her person.

So being insulted is worse than being doxxed? You'd rather be insulted over email then have your personal informaiton posted here?

Wow, what is the problem with this? Some creepy, horrible person sends her a threatening letter and she posts it. Hey, if you have a problem with this, why not take it up with the creep threatening her? Doxxing or whatever is a way of denying her basic fucking respect from you rags, AGAIN. It's always something, thank god there is some sort of arbitrary thing women can do that make it able, hell justified, in disregarding everything she ever tries to do or say. Congrats, you got one more in, can't wait for the next one.

Fenrox Jackson:Wow, what is the problem with this? Some creepy, horrible person sends her a threatening letter and she posts it. Hey, if you have a problem with this, why not take it up with the creep threatening her? Doxxing or whatever is a way of denying her basic fucking respect from you rags, AGAIN. It's always something, thank god there is some sort of arbitrary thing women can do that make it able, hell justified, in disregarding everything she ever tries to do or say. Congrats, you got one more in, can't wait for the next one.

You don't see the problem with posting other people's personal info without permission?

And if you've never heard of doxxing just search for it. It's pretty tabooo across the internet.

With that I am out of this thread so that the circle jerking hate fest against Sarkeesian that usually ensues can continue uninterrupted. Enjoy.

So you can claim things and never have to respond to criticism. Nice.

Yes, are you a child? There aren't any rules about this. She isn't creating libel or censorship or any thing. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter get to say whatever the hell they want. So does Stephen Colbert and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. She publishes a lecture series about Tropes vs Women! How are you not getting this? It's like your yelling at a book for being in english, "Who taught you that language!?" *wags finger at book

Thaius:Anita was definitely in the wrong here (whether purposeful or accidental), but I'm not exactly feeling any sympathy for the miserable son of a bitch that sent her that horrible email. She was right to call him out, just not to put his personal info up with it.

In fairness, I suspect if she had masked the details, she would be accused by the people now claiming she broke the law of "making it up."

This phrase is entirely meaningless except for a vague "I want there to be less of a particular type of game I don't like probably based on my subjective take on maturity". Besides no medium on earth is entirely "grown up" ... ever. You'll still find 'immature' movies, books, tv shows, you name it.

I think the main thing I would like to point out is that we have nothing to lose here and a lot to gain, we're not going to see games, styles, and themes we know and love disappear, but we might see more variety and some new perspectives. Its win win so far as I'm concerned.

Nothing good can come out of misinformation except a sense of skepticism.

Fenrox Jackson:Wow, what is the problem with this? Some creepy, horrible person sends her a threatening letter and she posts it. Hey, if you have a problem with this, why not take it up with the creep threatening her? Doxxing or whatever is a way of denying her basic fucking respect from you rags, AGAIN. It's always something, thank god there is some sort of arbitrary thing women can do that make it able, hell justified, in disregarding everything she ever tries to do or say. Congrats, you got one more in, can't wait for the next one.

You don't see the problem with posting other people's personal info without permission?

And if you've never heard of doxxing just search for it. It's pretty tabooo across the internet.

Don't threaten people on the internet. Here is a little story for you. I am a gay man, I like dicks, they are awesome, I like dicks in any situation. A female friend was recalling a story over drinks one night about some perv who exposed himself to her on the train. They were sitting across from one another and he took his dick out and stroked it a couple of times. She left at the next stop.

This interaction deeply shook her, and I immediately noticed. I it should be said, am blunt, a bit of a dick myself you know. I rounded on her a bit "What's so bad about some creep showing you his dick?" I mean, it's harmless and more embarrassing for him really, and hey, I would love some dude just whipping it out for funsies. She didn't get offended, she is a NYC Public High School teacher, but she did get bothered by it, we're friends. The problem she oh so deliciously trapped me with, was that in that single moment, that man had taken all the power in the situation. Power is some haughty touchy-feely way of describing the subject of a story as if real life were a story. It's a term used often and misused often.

When this man did that, any reaction she took was connected and controlled by this man. She was a powerless character in a play she didn't write. If she freaks out and calls attention to it she is doing so in the man's interest, she is giving into his perversion and acting the part of the victim. If she smirks and does nothing she is validating his gross act. She said that all these things went through her mind and she got so mad that there wasn't a way for her to "win". The best possible result would have been if that man kept his dick out of it.

Some guy just did that to Anita, he started a game where she doesn't win in the end. All she is doing is playing along, in some way or another. Just another one of these games pinned to her by a bunch of dicks in the wind. The only move is to not play, and in this case it's that the guy DOESN'T threaten her.

And there aren't any rules for me criticizing her for this. What's your point?

She gets to doxx that guy and you get to not get it and get mad at her for doxing. So you should stop arguing with people on the internet now that you are realizing it's 100% futile right? NO? How shocking.

And there aren't any rules for me criticizing her for this. What's your point?

She gets to doxx that guy and you get to not get it and get mad at her for doxing. So you should stop arguing with people on the internet now that you are realizing it's 100% futile right? NO? How shocking.

I think you may have responded to the wrong person but in case you haven't.

Saying someone "just doesn't get it" and nothing more is just lazy. It's dodging having to have a point.

Fenrox Jackson:Wow, what is the problem with this? Some creepy, horrible person sends her a threatening letter and she posts it. Hey, if you have a problem with this, why not take it up with the creep threatening her? Doxxing or whatever is a way of denying her basic fucking respect from you rags, AGAIN. It's always something, thank god there is some sort of arbitrary thing women can do that make it able, hell justified, in disregarding everything she ever tries to do or say. Congrats, you got one more in, can't wait for the next one.

You don't see the problem with posting other people's personal info without permission?

And if you've never heard of doxxing just search for it. It's pretty tabooo across the internet.

Seriously? If you can't find that then you DON'T get it man. I can't tutor you in this you have to be able to comprehend the things you read. Read it again. Wow, just wow.

Please quote to me exactly where either email was threatening. I read both in full, and while i can see insults being thrown around, which in such a discourse are usually used for extra effect rather than to directly insult, though both situations easily apply, insulting someone is NOT the same as threatening.

To quote a direct example, the second email she released has this as its closing line:"Crawl back into the hole you came from, please". Thats neither insulting nor threatening. If it was a threat it would be worded differently, for example "Crawl back into the hole you came from or i will do X to you", where X can be something very mundane or outright threats of a physical nature.

Insults are not the same as Threats of violence, or threats in general. So to sum it up, in your words: You dont get it man.

IceForce:How do you know she doesn't? How do you know she didn't get someone to check the validity of the details before she posted it?

She has a person who films and processes her videos for her, is it really that much of a stretch to consider that she might have someone with enough computer knowledge to check the validity of an email address and IP? Assuming she doesn't have the know-how to do that herself, of course.

If she checked out the details, and found them to be fake, then there's no harm in posting them. Is it possible that this might be the case?

As I said earlier, we really need someone here with the relevant computer know-how, to do the necessary checks on those details. Otherwise we're going around in circles here.

You must have a really low esteem of Anita. So she's that stupid she would go through the trouble of checking whether it's fake or not to see if there is harm into posting it instead of just... you know, covering up the IP and E-mail (which can be done in 5 seconds with a program like paint)?

If she had done the latter, people would be accusing her of posting fake emails, making things up, and not having the "guts" to reveal her sources of alleged online abuse.

And with that, I've just repeated what I said in my first comment on this thread, 7 pages ago.

She really is a master of her own PR: She selects two emails from a couple of disgruntled gents and posts them on twitter using it as an opportunity to box all her critics without actually responding to them. It also keeps up her appearance of "victim-hood". Two for one.

I've considered Hanlon's razor here, but think an incompetent move by her would be to call out a genuine critic of her work. That would have embarrassing results. The only incompetence is "doxing" the two mailers, but don't see any serious legal action being taken against her.

She really is a master of her own PR: She selects two emails from a couple of disgruntled gents and posts them on twitter using it as an opportunity to box all her critics without actually responding to them. It also keeps up her appearance of "victim-hood". Two for one.

I've considered Hanlon's razor here, but think an incompetent move by her would be to call out a genuine critic of her work. That would have embarrassing results. The only incompetence is "doxing" the two mailers, but don't see any serious legal action being taken against her.

She is impressive.

Yeah, I bet she wrote the threatening emails and sent them to herself just to make her critics look bad!

Doxing or Doxxing is the act of identifying a person from one small bit of information such as an email address. The "Doxer" uses this email address to find out phone numbers, address, real name etc of the target. Doxing is "legal" as long as you are only finding publicy available information, it becomes illegal if you stalk the person through online chat services, like facebook or msn, or if you hack into their social accounts, like facebook, twitter, gmail hotmail etc.

Do I care? Nope. Send an abuse email, and get shamed. It's not like Anonymous haven't been doing this for years.

If she had done the latter, people would be accusing her of posting fake emails, making things up, and not having the "guts" to reveal her sources of alleged online abuse.

And with that, I've just repeated what I said in my first comment on this thread, 7 pages ago.

We really ARE going around in circles here.

First: So what?Secondly: Any evidence of that? Has she ever linked mails with the info covered up and been accused of making it up?And thirdly: It's very easy to add fake info yourself so if people were really that desperate to claim she made it up they still could.

Personally i've never seen people claim someone made things up just because the contact info of the alleged offender was covered up. But maybe i just don't visit the right spaces of the net?

She really is a master of her own PR: She selects two emails from a couple of disgruntled gents and posts them on twitter using it as an opportunity to box all her critics without actually responding to them. It also keeps up her appearance of "victim-hood". Two for one.

I've considered Hanlon's razor here, but think an incompetent move by her would be to call out a genuine critic of her work. That would have embarrassing results. The only incompetence is "doxing" the two mailers, but don't see any serious legal action being taken against her.

She is impressive.

Yeah, I bet she wrote the threatening emails and sent them to herself just to make her critics look bad!

He said that? No. But has she, or has she not, only ever "addressed" the obnoxious elements among her critics? Indeed she did. It's a very common tactic used to demonize a group. The Extreme right wing does exactly the same with foreigners for instance. They don't lie or make things up, they just only talk about the "bad" foreigners which than in turns creates the image all foreigners are bad.

Just like her die-hard fans (and even some in here) seem to believe only trolls/sexists think she's a cretin.

This phrase is entirely meaningless except for a vague "I want there to be less of a particular type of game I don't like probably based on my subjective take on maturity". Besides no medium on earth is entirely "grown up" ... ever. You'll still find 'immature' movies, books, tv shows, you name it.

I think the main thing I would like to point out is that we have nothing to lose here and a lot to gain, we're not going to see games, styles, and themes we know and love disappear, but we might see more variety and some new perspectives. Its win win so far as I'm concerned.

Nothing good can come out of misinformation except a sense of skepticism.

Well that's a thoroughly cynical breakdown of my post, I could reply counterpoint but frankly I feel I've said everything I want to. Suffice to say we disagree.

Actually I will clarify one point, when I said "we need our medium to grow up" I wasn't referring to specific games as being immature but that the medium and the industry as a whole is still very young, its still forming, or growing up if you allow. My point being not that computer games are puerile but that attitudes and practices in the gaming community and in the industry are broadly immature when compared to older mediums such as TV, film, literature etc. and this is reflected in the games.

Actually I will clarify one point, when I said "we need our medium to grow up" I wasn't referring to specific games as being immature but that the medium and the industry as a whole is still very young, its still forming, or growing up if you allow. My point being not that computer games are puerile but that attitudes and practices in the gaming community and in the industry are broadly immature when compared to older mediums such as TV, film, literature etc. and this is reflected in the games.

May I ask why/how precisely? I don't think VG's are immature at all actually. They may still grow but i feel like we've reached a nice stage. One in which almost everyone can find his/her kind of game.

Actually I will clarify one point, when I said "we need our medium to grow up" I wasn't referring to specific games as being immature but that the medium and the industry as a whole is still very young, its still forming, or growing up if you allow. My point being not that computer games are puerile but that attitudes and practices in the gaming community and in the industry are broadly immature when compared to older mediums such as TV, film, literature etc. and this is reflected in the games.

May I ask why/how precisely? I don't think VG's are immature at all actually. They may still grow but i feel like we've reached a nice stage. One in which almost everyone can find his/her kind of game.

There has definitely been progress, especially in the recent few years with the explosion of indie games, but honestly I think this is just the start and there is a long way to go. Once again, I want to reiterate, I'm not saying games are immature, I'm saying the industry that produces them and the community that consumes them are both relatively new and consequently the medium hasn't fully found its footing yet. Just 20 years ago computer games were a niche product largely for kids, now its a multi billion dollar industry that rivals the film and tv industries and that has happened practically overnight... the transition is still a work in progress.

That comparison probably doesn't do you any favours. Hitchens and Dawkins come (came) off as petty and bitchy when the do (did) that, annoyed moderates, and made people on both sides dig in harder (as a bunch of atheists do a victory dance while the theists circle their wagons). why do you think it would do any better here? I don't think a single person ever admitted they'd been "hitchslapped" and moved away from making claims about God.

Not only was nothing accomplished, but it has the end result of showing the worst of atheism pettily spiking the ball for naught. Unless that really is what the atheist community is all about: scoring points with zingers. In that case, I need to find a new community.

Some guy just did that to Anita, he started a game where she doesn't win in the end. All she is doing is playing along, in some way or another. Just another one of these games pinned to her by a bunch of dicks in the wind. The only move is to not play, and in this case it's that the guy DOESN'T threaten her.

How so? As far as I can tell, the only people against her are the ones who were already against her. What did she lose? According to the laws people have cited to indicate she broke the law, she didn't even do that. So what exactly does she lose for playing this game? Even if you take the most cynical approach, she scored points with her followers and he scored points with her detractors. And not a damn thing changed.

As should be expected. If Anita's next video read the ingredients on a box of corn flakes, there would be a hundred butthurt opponents posting videos a day later trying to discredit her, the cereal she selected, and her qualifications to read ingredients. People would whine that men eat cereal too, and start the #notallbreakfasts hashtag and attribute to her ingredients she never read.

This isn't even about right and wrong, or more of the people getting all furious would have also done so about the Depression Quest dev getting doxed. This is an excuse to complain about the Voldemort of gaming. Most people don't even seem to legitimately care about someone getting doxed. That's barely part of the story. It's "Anita did something bad!"

That comparison probably doesn't do you any favours. Hitchens and Dawkins come (came) off as petty and bitchy when the do (did) that, annoyed moderates, and made people on both sides dig in harder (as a bunch of atheists do a victory dance while the theists circle their wagons). why do you think it would do any better here? I don't think a single person ever admitted they'd been "hitchslapped" and moved away from making claims about God.

Not only was nothing accomplished, but it has the end result of showing the worst of atheism pettily spiking the ball for naught. Unless that really is what the atheist community is all about: scoring points with zingers. In that case, I need to find a new community.

No debate done EVER has ever accomplished anything outside of people who are on the fence leaning more towards one side then they do another.

No go ahead look through every Anita thread on the escapist, tell me if you see a trend with the names in who seem to support, or are against the things Anita does.

No debate causes people to change their minds. Only people actually willing to participate in the idea that they could be wrong, will change their minds. And few if anyone who go into any form of debate are doing so because they are open to the idea that they will change their minds.

So when you say nothing was accomplished, you are only half right. Nothing was accomplished unless someone was on the fence about it. Anyone who enters into those debates to debate, are not in the mood to change their minds.

Just as no one in here is in the mood to change their minds, if you are in a debate with the hopes of changing someone else's mind you are in the wrong avenue of discourse. That only happens if someone is on the fence prior to the debate.

So how do you know who is or is not on the fence? Simple, you don't. That is why you can only present and support your argument as best as you can, and if that means saying this that directly irk your dissenters, oh well.

You don't like what Hitchens did, you don't like what Dawkins does.

You don't like how they handle things. Funny you'll notice a lot of people say the same thing of Anita while talking of her, even while they agree sexism is something of a problem in gaming.

Look how riled up she makes people, and how both sides just "dig in harder".

This is what debates do. The only people who have a change of mind were already on the fence.

Because apples and oranges.I feel like the term 'victim shaming' is used on the Internet similarly to the term 'ludonarrative dissonance'. A lot of people are using it, understanding it basically, but not really.

Believe it or not:It is perfectly possible that a victim of a crime 'had it coming'.

You are free to wear sexy clothing all you want. You can get drunk at parties all you want. You cannot run around insulting people all you want.

If you attack people (verbally or physically), you have no one to blame but yourself if it backfires.Of course this does NOT mean that any reaction of those people is justified.

Just like in this case (unless there are more details we don't know about).Anita shouldn't get away with what she did, but it's still those guys fault, because last time I checked there was no justification for insulting people like that.

Zachary Amaranth:That comparison probably doesn't do you any favours. Hitchens and Dawkins come (came) off as petty and bitchy when the do (did) that, annoyed moderates, and made people on both sides dig in harder (as a bunch of atheists do a victory dance while the theists circle their wagons). why do you think it would do any better here? I don't think a single person ever admitted they'd been "hitchslapped" and moved away from making claims about God.

Not only was nothing accomplished, but it has the end result of showing the worst of atheism pettily spiking the ball for naught. Unless that really is what the atheist community is all about: scoring points with zingers. In that case, I need to find a new community.

Wasn't making a comment on atheism/theism. Hirsi Ali's absence in your post is interesting...

Trying to do you a favour here, against my better judgement:

Hirsi AliHitchensDawkinsSarkeesian

Out of the four, three of them do something that one does not.

If it helps you figure it out, included below was the rest of the post of mine that you left out in your response:

Little old me:Hahahaha! Nothing that ridiculous. I've no doubt she receives lovely letters personally written by her haters, but she never responds to her critics and she capitalises on that hate mail.